Specialist contact lens fitting

What is meant by the term ‘specialist contact lens fitting’? Or put another way, what would be considered non-specialist contact lens fitting? Is there such a thing as routine contact lens fitting? Soft or silicone hydrogel fitting for daily wear would probably be considered as routine contact lens fitting, but would extended or flexible wear remain in the same category or would they be considered a specialist fit? Different eras will classify different products as being ‘specialist’. Certainly twenty years ago soft toric contact lenses were considered as being speciality lenses but today would be thought of as routine lenses. Conversely, gas permeable lenses were thought of as mainstream twenty years ago but now are considered as speciality lenses. Although this would not be the same globally, as in some countries (such as Netherlands, France and Japan) gas permeable lens fitting remains popular and is not on the decline as in other countries (Canada, Australia and Sweden) [1]. Bandage soft lenses applied after surface laser refractive procedures would be considered as therapeutic lenses but in reality they are just plano thin hydrogel lenses worn constantly for 3–4 days to allow the underlying epithelium to convalesce and are then removed [2]. Some patients find that wearing hydrogel lenses during periods when they suffer from seasonal allergies actually improves their ocular comfort as the contact lens acts as a barrier to the allergen [3] and [4]. Scleral lenses have long been considered speciality lenses, apart from a time when they were the only lenses available but at that time all contact lens work would have been considered speciality practice! Nowadays we see the advent of mini-scleral designs and we see large diameter gas permeable lenses too. It is possible that these lenses increase the popularity of gas permeable lenses again and they become more main stream. So it would seem that the lines between routine and speciality contact lens fitting are not clear. Whether a lens is classed a specialist fit or not would depend on the lens type, why it was fitted, where in the world the fitting was being done and even the era in which it was fitted. This begs the question as to what would be considered entry level knowledge in contact lens fitting. This may not be an issue for most BCLA members or CLAE readers but certainly would be for bodies such as the College of Optometrists (UK) or the Association of British Dispensing Opticians when they are planning the final registration examinations for budding practitioners or when planning the level of higher level qualifications such as College Certificates or Diplomas. Similarly for training institutions when they are planning their course content. This becomes even trickier when trying to devise a qualification that spans across many countries, like the European Diploma in Optometry and Optics. How do we know if the training and examination level is correct? One way would be to analyse things when they go wrong and if patterns of malpractice are seen then maybe that could be used as an indicator to more training being needed. There were 162 Fitness to Practice Hearing at the General Optical Council between 2001 and 2010. Forty-seven of these were clinically related case, 39 fraud related, and 76 others. Of the clinical ones only 3 were contact lens related. So it would appear that as whole, in the profession, contact lens clinical skills are not being questioned too often (although it seems a few of us can’t keep our hands out the cookie jar!).

Optimal time following fluorescein instillation to evaluate rigid gas permeable contact lens fit

PURPOSE: To examine the optimum time at which fluorescein patterns of gas permeable lenses (GPs) should be evaluated. METHODS: Aligned, 0.2mm steep and 0.2mm flat GPs were fitted to 17 patients (aged 20.6±1.1 years, 10 male). Fluorescein was applied to their upper temporal bulbar conjunctiva with a moistened fluorescein strip. Digital slit lamp images (CSO, Italy) at 10× magnification of the fluorescein pattern viewed with blue light through a yellow filter were captured every 15s. Fluorescein intensity in central, mid peripheral and edge regions of the superior, inferior, temporal and nasal quadrants of the lens were graded subjectively using a +2 to -2 scale and using ImageJ software on the simultaneously captured images. RESULTS: Subjectively graded and objectively image analysed fluorescein intensity changed with time (p<0.001), lens region (centre, mid-periphery and edge: p<0.05) and there was interaction between lens region with lens fit (p<0.001). For edge band width, there was a significant effect of time (F=118.503, p<0.001) and lens fit (F=5.1249, p=0.012). The expected alignment, flat and steep fitting patterns could be seen from approximately after 30 to 180s subjectively and 15 to 105s in captured images. CONCLUSION: Although the stability of fluorescein intensity can start to decline in as little as 45s post fluorescein instillation, the diagnostic pattern of alignment, steep or flat fit is seen in each meridian by subjective observation from about 30s to 3min indicating this is the most appropriate time window to evaluate GP lenses in clinical practice.